The reason I wanted to write on this issue is because it effects one of the things I love most, sports. Being a Christian, my moral values don't really come into play when it comes to this topic because nothing in the Bible deals with this issue. Being an athlete however here at USC I know first hand the restrictiveness on what is allowed and what isn't when it comes to using these drugs. I've listened through many discussions about the repercussions of taking such drugs and I would never knowingly take anything but I'm always left asking, what if everyone took them? How much different would sports look like? I know that drugs can't take the place of hard work and dedication but what if there was an edge only achieved from taking them. How much bigger, faster , stronger could I be? Because of these questions I have decided to do my own research on some of these performance enhancing drugs. The sources that I've picked include some very valuable information when its comes to this topic. My first source is from a British sports medicine Journal article which is titled "Why we should allow performance enhancing drugs in sport" written by the collaboration of J. Savulescu, B Foddy and M Clayton. The article mainly talks about how performance enhancing drugs could benefit sports by leveling the playing field. As it is right now the, sports are more accepting of people who have won the genetic lottery (people who are born with outstanding characteristics due to there gene makeup).  They claim that using performance enhancing drugs would level the planning field. The major values in the article seem to be the desire for a higher level of completion achieved by modern medicine. These medical professional don't have a personal stake in the outcome but lend their medical knowledge to the subject matter The articles cites numerous sources that spans from newspapers to other articles in the British sports medicine journal. The authors of this article write for the British Journal of Sports Medicine which gives them some creditability. They are also affiliated with the University of Oxford and the Children's research Institute of Victoria, Australia. The bias in the article doesn't really seam to be apparent if there is any. I believe the authors just wanted to take a new look at something that society has deemed as bad.  The second source that I found was a website that discusses controversial issue such as abortion, gun rights and immigration. The article called "Should the use of Performance Enhancing Drugs be Legalized?", talks about more of the overall benefit of legalizing of these drugs saying that if they were legal they could be more controlled and in term reduce the health risk associated with them. It also goes one to say that the the governments handling of the issue hasn't been the best and that having these rules has only worsened the problem not made it better. The authors of this article include Bengt Kayser, MD, PhD, Professor of Exercise Physiology, and Alexandre Mauron , PhD, Professor of Bioethics, both at the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Geneva, Switzerland, along with Andy Miah, Ph. There titles give them most of the credibility but bias is defiantly apparent. My third and final source comes from the AMA Journal of Ethics entitled "Performance Enhancing Drugs in Sports". This article mainly summarizes why these drugs are not good for you and gives different opinion from medical professionals as to what is bad about these drugs. There main source of evidence comes from data on adolescence taking these drugs, which leaves me to wonder if they ere legal and regulated would that keep it out of kids hands? But that argument is for the main paper.  This article goes against my point if view on the subject but I think its important to include as a source so I know what the argument of the other side is.  The does seem credible because it has medical professionals as the main contributors to the article. This research question is arguable because there are many different viewpoints on this issue. While researching some sources do disagree with some claiming that drugs destroy rather than enhance the integrity of the game. These different perspectives don't really change my position on the subject but defiantly gives me a larger scope them looking at this topic, I'm not saying that all there aren't any cons but that my position is not changed. I might need to revise my research question to include the long term effects and see if that is something I want to put in my final paper.  

